6 ms·

We live in the world where we can see a bait and switch for what it is. MongoDB was advertised as being Open Source and Free Software, distributed under an OSI

We live in the world where we can see a bait and switch for what it is. MongoDB was advertised as being Open Source and Free Software, distributed under an OSI-compliant and FSF-compliant license. Now they are trying to eat their cake and have it too. > "then are lambasted when they try to prevent a competitor from copying it wholesale?" Because that's not what open source is about. Open source is about contributing to the commons, such that your competitors can make a profit from your work. If your competitors aren't able to do that, then the software is not open source. Period. And in this case, we should point out that MongoDB Inc by owning the copyright doesn't have to play by the same rules, they aren't beholden to the same rules as everyone else. > "If MongoDB Inc can't compete in the enterprise cloud market simply because they are not AWS (as mentioned by threeseed), what should their business model be?" Why the fuck should we care what their business model would be? That's for them to figure out. But if they sell something as open source and they close source it, then we, the schmucks that bought into it, will point out that MongoDB is no longer open source and treat it as a proprietary piece that comes with the caveats of proprietary software, like lock in, etc. So I hope somebody forks MongoDB from the version when it was open source.

nevi-me 7y ago
> So I hope somebody forks MongoDB from the version where it was open source. To what end? Why should we use a fork that's supported by a few people when we can still use the Community Edition that's from the horse's mouth? The idea of forking things for the fun of it actually perpetuates the problem that we already have with OSS. We want to get things for free, use them to make money, but still expect support for new features and bug fixes. This is worse when someone does this in their 'free time'. Let's discuss the merits of forking from when it was open source. Percona has a fork, or is it not fit for purpose as they also adopted the SSPL thing? Wait, how has a fork of MongoDB also adopted MongoDB's evil license? How are they able to take contributions from MongoDB and package them under the same license? Do they share the source code internally, or do they upstream changes that are in the open? > Why the fuck should we care what their business model would be? That's for them to figure out. Isn't restricting Amazon and others from profiting from their efforts part of figuring out this business model? > But if they sell something as open source and they close source it, then we, the schmucks that bought into it, will point out that MongoDB is no longer open source and treat it as a proprietary piece that comes with the caveats of proprietary software, lock in, etc. Did MongoDB sell you their product as open-source? Which specific product? Was it the Community database, or the Enterprise one? Your argument lacks substance, because you're responding to someone who's asking why people are moving to another closed source product, one whose source code you can't even inspect.
- SergeAx 7y ago
  The idea of free software is that user can (and have the right to) modify it in any way one wants. If I found a bug in free software, I can fix it by myself or wait for someone else to fix it, or pay someone to make a fix. That's the way it works. (edit: typo)
  - nevi-me 7y ago
    But what's the difference between open source, free, and "source available" for inspection?
    - nailer 7y ago
      This is easily searchable.
      - nevi-me 7y ago
        I'm not asking for lack of knowledge, but I was asking the parent as they needed to make the distinction.
        nailer 7y ago
        Why? The FSF and the OSD make the distinction.
    - blauekapelle 7y ago
      Open source: source is freely available online. Free software: free for modification, expansion or forking. Possibly free for profit (BSD license) Source Available: Source is available but under restrictions. Locked room source viewing under NDA to confirm there aren't vulnerabilities for example.
      - StavrosK 7y ago
        Open source/free software: You can download, modify and re-release the source. Source-available: You can view the source, perhaps freely, but can't modify or release your modifications.
goatinaboat 7y ago
I hope somebody forks MongoDB from the version when it was open source. That no one has done that already suggests that no one thinks it’s worth doing. And it isn’t, Postgres is properly free, and more than surpasses Mongo in all aspects.
- nailer 7y ago
  Coming from Rethink and Mongo I don't like SQL. I don't want rows at all, or documentation that assumes a table model. Having a JSON data type doesn't mean you're a document store.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    Postgres can do JSON. Does MongoDB have schemas yet?
    - merlynn 7y ago
      Yes. MongoDB enabled a standards-based approach to schemas back in 3.6... should you feel you need schemas. https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/core/schema-validation/ https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/core/schema-validation/
    - nailer 7y ago
      The comment you're replying to mentions that Postgres can do JSON.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - StavrosK 7y ago
        Ah, I see what they meant now.
- bad_user 7y ago
  Forking takes resources. MariaDB, the MySQL fork, didn't happen over night. Give it time.
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
I guess my definition of open source is that you can read the source so you theoretically know what you're getting or if things don't go the way you want you can figure out why. This means that open source could theoretically be free as in Mel Gibson shouting but not free as in money found in between the cushions of your couch. That said I dislike MongoDB but for various other reasons.
- filleduchaos 7y ago
  And so what do you do after "figuring out why" when you're not actually free to modify the software?
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    well often when I read the source of a library (or tool or framework or what term we wish to use), even one that I am free to modify the source of, I will see that the way I thought I was going to solve my problem was not the way to do it and I will need to alter my code not the code of the library. In a few occasions I see that I need to alter the library, if I do not have the rights to do that then I would probably end up dropping the library as being inadequate to the task. In some occasions I have seen that I would like to get rid of the library but I am generally not allowed to by other business decisions, in those cases I have always been able to find some hack that allows me to do what I need to even if it goes against the preconceptions of the used library. I then make extensive comments in my code explaining why, probably referring to the other solutions I would prefer to use and explaining why I was unable to do so. Why? What do you do?
- gwd 7y ago
  > I guess my definition of open source... Then you've misunderstood what "open source" means. The term "open source" was invented specifically to describe software with the following properties (among others) [1]: ~~~ 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. [...] 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. ~~~ Any software which doesn't meet those criteria isn't open-source. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd (edit: formatting)
makomk 7y ago
Not only that, MongoDB accepted code contributions from the community under the pretense that their software was open source. They then used the copyright assignment that they required from all contributors to make it non-open-source when they did this license change.
- pas 7y ago
  And anyone that sent in patches benefited from it. What's your point? Cloud providers are now barred from using new MongoDB versions. Is that fair? Well, the developers (a company) made a choice. They want the revenue from the support/monitoring business, AWS is eating their lunch. So either they completely change their business or try to somehow stop AWS et al. from doing that. Since MongoDB just recently released 4.x with distributed transactions, it made sense to do the license change thing. Otherwise no one would care (and anyone stuck on AWS would just continue to use whatever 3.x compatible AWS provided). And still, it's likely that AWS will continue to offer their non-feature-parity fork for quite some time. So, in that sense anyone who cares or cared for AGPL MongoDB tech should have advocated for this license change a lot sooner.
  - bad_user 7y ago
    People invest in open source when they believe in its continuity. No, people sending patches are not necessarily benefiting from it. Patches can be very expensive and it can be cheaper to pay for actual support with a proprietary solution that's at least honest about its nature and won't pull a bait and switch on you.
StavrosK 7y ago
Can someone explain to me what the license changes are? From what I saw, they just strengthened the AGPLv3 a bit, and it seems to me like a better license. Sure, more restrictive, but in the right direction (like the GPL is more restrictive towards having to share than the MIT license is).
pas 7y ago
> Open source is about contributing to the commons, such that your competitors can make a profit from your work. If your competitors aren't able to do that, then the software is not open source. Period. This kind of first order reasoning is nice, but the reality of software economics is a tad bit more complex. The assumption that the market is large, that the commons helps everybody sort of equally are not true in a lot of sectors. Namely, as IT transforms itself a lot of things become almost zero-marginal-cost. Starting a new server? Setting up a new database? Backup/Snapshot? Load balancing? Scaling? Just click that AWS web console shit, and you're good to go. And this out-competes the others. I'm not saying that changing licenses is super-A-OK, but the fact is the license was never good in the first place, because it failed to take into account what will happen when AWS starts to offer MongoDB. Furthermore, I have no problem with anyone holding the view that MongoDB should then compete with AWS, and/or focus on on-premise computing, and/or slowly pivot away from building MongoDB itself to whatever. But anyone holding this view should recognize the aforementioned reality that cloud computing is happening, IT is not just a hydra, it's an ouroboros too, it's eating itself.
- bad_user 7y ago
  > "The assumption that the market is large, that the commons helps everybody sort of equally are not true in a lot of sectors." Not sure what we are talking about, personally I don't make that assumption, although I recognize that others might. Yes, roads and highways help big companies more than they help small companies. That doesn't mean that smaller companies don't benefit from the existence of roads and highways. > "the fact is the license was never good in the first place, because it failed to take into account what will happen when AWS starts to offer MongoDB" Without that license, let's be honest, MongoDB wouldn't have gotten popular in the first place. MongoDB has been plagued by technical issues too and without it being open source, one of the carrots being used, MongoDB wouldn't have been a blip on anyone's radar. So this is a conundrum and I understand the reasons why MongoDB Inc has switched, I do, but I just don't care. Because the nature of the thing has changed — and for example I would now need a lawyer to find if my own product is safe or not with an on-premises MongoDB solution, because I can no longer rely on OSI's definition to tell me if my use is OK or not. And yes, we've got random opinions on the Internet about what you can and cannot do, but that's not valid legal advice. And even if my use of MongoDB is OK for now, who's to say they won't change the license again in the future to something even more abhorrent. This means that for me going forward is that MongoDB is no longer reliable from a legal standpoint.

nevi-me 7y ago

> So I hope somebody forks MongoDB from the version where it was open source. To what end? Why should we use a fork that's supported by a few people when we can still use the Community Edition that's from the horse's mouth? The idea of forking things for the fun of it actually perpetuates the problem that we already have with OSS. We want to get things for free, use them to make money, but still expect support for new features and bug fixes. This is worse when someone does this in their 'free time'. Let's discuss the merits of forking from when it was open source. Percona has a fork, or is it not fit for purpose as they also adopted the SSPL thing? Wait, how has a fork of MongoDB also adopted MongoDB's evil license? How are they able to take contributions from MongoDB and package them under the same license? Do they share the source code internally, or do they upstream changes that are in the open? > Why the fuck should we care what their business model would be? That's for them to figure out. Isn't restricting Amazon and others from profiting from their efforts part of figuring out this business model? > But if they sell something as open source and they close source it, then we, the schmucks that bought into it, will point out that MongoDB is no longer open source and treat it as a proprietary piece that comes with the caveats of proprietary software, lock in, etc. Did MongoDB sell you their product as open-source? Which specific product? Was it the Community database, or the Enterprise one? Your argument lacks substance, because you're responding to someone who's asking why people are moving to another closed source product, one whose source code you can't even inspect.

SergeAx 7y ago
The idea of free software is that user can (and have the right to) modify it in any way one wants. If I found a bug in free software, I can fix it by myself or wait for someone else to fix it, or pay someone to make a fix. That's the way it works. (edit: typo)
- nevi-me 7y ago
  But what's the difference between open source, free, and "source available" for inspection?
  - nailer 7y ago
    This is easily searchable.
    - nevi-me 7y ago
      I'm not asking for lack of knowledge, but I was asking the parent as they needed to make the distinction.
      - nailer 7y ago
        Why? The FSF and the OSD make the distinction.
  - blauekapelle 7y ago
    Open source: source is freely available online. Free software: free for modification, expansion or forking. Possibly free for profit (BSD license) Source Available: Source is available but under restrictions. Locked room source viewing under NDA to confirm there aren't vulnerabilities for example.
    - StavrosK 7y ago
      Open source/free software: You can download, modify and re-release the source. Source-available: You can view the source, perhaps freely, but can't modify or release your modifications.

goatinaboat 7y ago

I hope somebody forks MongoDB from the version when it was open source. That no one has done that already suggests that no one thinks it’s worth doing. And it isn’t, Postgres is properly free, and more than surpasses Mongo in all aspects.

nailer 7y ago
Coming from Rethink and Mongo I don't like SQL. I don't want rows at all, or documentation that assumes a table model. Having a JSON data type doesn't mean you're a document store.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  Postgres can do JSON. Does MongoDB have schemas yet?
  - merlynn 7y ago
    Yes. MongoDB enabled a standards-based approach to schemas back in 3.6... should you feel you need schemas. https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/core/schema-validation/ https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/core/schema-validation/
  - nailer 7y ago
    The comment you're replying to mentions that Postgres can do JSON.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - StavrosK 7y ago
      Ah, I see what they meant now.
bad_user 7y ago
Forking takes resources. MariaDB, the MySQL fork, didn't happen over night. Give it time.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

I guess my definition of open source is that you can read the source so you theoretically know what you're getting or if things don't go the way you want you can figure out why. This means that open source could theoretically be free as in Mel Gibson shouting but not free as in money found in between the cushions of your couch. That said I dislike MongoDB but for various other reasons.

filleduchaos 7y ago
And so what do you do after "figuring out why" when you're not actually free to modify the software?
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  well often when I read the source of a library (or tool or framework or what term we wish to use), even one that I am free to modify the source of, I will see that the way I thought I was going to solve my problem was not the way to do it and I will need to alter my code not the code of the library. In a few occasions I see that I need to alter the library, if I do not have the rights to do that then I would probably end up dropping the library as being inadequate to the task. In some occasions I have seen that I would like to get rid of the library but I am generally not allowed to by other business decisions, in those cases I have always been able to find some hack that allows me to do what I need to even if it goes against the preconceptions of the used library. I then make extensive comments in my code explaining why, probably referring to the other solutions I would prefer to use and explaining why I was unable to do so. Why? What do you do?
gwd 7y ago
> I guess my definition of open source... Then you've misunderstood what "open source" means. The term "open source" was invented specifically to describe software with the following properties (among others) [1]: ~~~ 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. [...] 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. ~~~ Any software which doesn't meet those criteria isn't open-source. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd (edit: formatting)

makomk 7y ago

Not only that, MongoDB accepted code contributions from the community under the pretense that their software was open source. They then used the copyright assignment that they required from all contributors to make it non-open-source when they did this license change.

pas 7y ago
And anyone that sent in patches benefited from it. What's your point? Cloud providers are now barred from using new MongoDB versions. Is that fair? Well, the developers (a company) made a choice. They want the revenue from the support/monitoring business, AWS is eating their lunch. So either they completely change their business or try to somehow stop AWS et al. from doing that. Since MongoDB just recently released 4.x with distributed transactions, it made sense to do the license change thing. Otherwise no one would care (and anyone stuck on AWS would just continue to use whatever 3.x compatible AWS provided). And still, it's likely that AWS will continue to offer their non-feature-parity fork for quite some time. So, in that sense anyone who cares or cared for AGPL MongoDB tech should have advocated for this license change a lot sooner.
- bad_user 7y ago
  People invest in open source when they believe in its continuity. No, people sending patches are not necessarily benefiting from it. Patches can be very expensive and it can be cheaper to pay for actual support with a proprietary solution that's at least honest about its nature and won't pull a bait and switch on you.

StavrosK 7y ago

Can someone explain to me what the license changes are? From what I saw, they just strengthened the AGPLv3 a bit, and it seems to me like a better license. Sure, more restrictive, but in the right direction (like the GPL is more restrictive towards having to share than the MIT license is).

pas 7y ago

> Open source is about contributing to the commons, such that your competitors can make a profit from your work. If your competitors aren't able to do that, then the software is not open source. Period. This kind of first order reasoning is nice, but the reality of software economics is a tad bit more complex. The assumption that the market is large, that the commons helps everybody sort of equally are not true in a lot of sectors. Namely, as IT transforms itself a lot of things become almost zero-marginal-cost. Starting a new server? Setting up a new database? Backup/Snapshot? Load balancing? Scaling? Just click that AWS web console shit, and you're good to go. And this out-competes the others. I'm not saying that changing licenses is super-A-OK, but the fact is the license was never good in the first place, because it failed to take into account what will happen when AWS starts to offer MongoDB. Furthermore, I have no problem with anyone holding the view that MongoDB should then compete with AWS, and/or focus on on-premise computing, and/or slowly pivot away from building MongoDB itself to whatever. But anyone holding this view should recognize the aforementioned reality that cloud computing is happening, IT is not just a hydra, it's an ouroboros too, it's eating itself.

bad_user 7y ago
> "The assumption that the market is large, that the commons helps everybody sort of equally are not true in a lot of sectors." Not sure what we are talking about, personally I don't make that assumption, although I recognize that others might. Yes, roads and highways help big companies more than they help small companies. That doesn't mean that smaller companies don't benefit from the existence of roads and highways. > "the fact is the license was never good in the first place, because it failed to take into account what will happen when AWS starts to offer MongoDB" Without that license, let's be honest, MongoDB wouldn't have gotten popular in the first place. MongoDB has been plagued by technical issues too and without it being open source, one of the carrots being used, MongoDB wouldn't have been a blip on anyone's radar. So this is a conundrum and I understand the reasons why MongoDB Inc has switched, I do, but I just don't care. Because the nature of the thing has changed — and for example I would now need a lawyer to find if my own product is safe or not with an on-premises MongoDB solution, because I can no longer rely on OSI's definition to tell me if my use is OK or not. And yes, we've got random opinions on the Internet about what you can and cannot do, but that's not valid legal advice. And even if my use of MongoDB is OK for now, who's to say they won't change the license again in the future to something even more abhorrent. This means that for me going forward is that MongoDB is no longer reliable from a legal standpoint.